Often synonymous with Airbnb or Vrbo, STR properties are units intended to be rented out for less than a month. These properties provide a place to stay for people passing through and visiting St. Louis, encourage competition within the lodging industry, and bring revenue to their communities. Some owners, however, have been renting to unpredictable tenants, leading to out-of-control parties, violence, and even murder.

STR regulation has become common in major cities such as New York and London. Even some Missouri municipalities are adopting new rules. Citing similar frustrations to the City of St. Louis, St. Charles just placed a moratorium on new residential STRs in most of the city for a year.

The proposed regulations in St. Louis would, among other changes, create a permit and punishment system to hold STR operators accountable, require a Graduated Business License for owners renting out property they do not live in and a permit for individuals who rent out their primary residence, require a 24/7 available contact for the STR, and limit individuals to four permits for units they do not live in.

While some regulations on STRs are warranted due to the disturbances and dangers they can cause, parts of the proposal appear excessive.

The limit of four STR properties per owner seems like a solution in search of a problem. The city might have included a limit to prevent STR owners from operating many units (so many that someone could not realistically operate them alone) and ensuring that there is always some level of oversight for the STR properties. However, the requirements for each rental (24/7 contact, licenses, permits, punishments) should be more than enough to keep STR owners in check without more regulation. If someone can properly run several STRs without harming the community, why is the government trying to place further restrictions on them and create incentives to subvert the law?

More troubling is requiring permits for owner-occupied units. An STR is considered an owner-occupied unit when a property owner rents out a space where they live (such as a finished basement, or a garage converted into a studio). From the bill:

Applicants for a Short-Term Rental permit for an Owner-Occupied Dwelling Unit shall submit, on an annual basis, an application for a Short-Term Rental permit to the Building Division. The application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee in the amount of $150.00. – Board Bill 33, Page 5, Line 19

Not only does this degrade a means by which countless people have been able to afford academic programs or help lodge friends and family, it might run afoul of state law. Missouri Statute 71.990 limits restrictions on “home-based businesses” and may conflict with the proposed bills. St. Charles’s legislation might not be legal either. It is likely that courts will have to sort out the interplay between Missouri statute and local ordinances.

Overall, these bills appear to do a good job of regulating non-owner-occupied properties. They would give communities more power in mitigating problems with STRs while not being restrictive on those who rent their property. The proposals for owner-occupied properties, however, could be improved.

My colleagues Avery Frank and David Stokes discuss their opinions on the proposed bills here.

The post On Short-Term Rentals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state legislature in Missouri is currently considering legislation to dramatically expand the authority to institute land banks to municipalities across the state (the state legislature must approve all new land banks in Missouri). The state legislature should reject this legislation. If such legislation is enacted, counties and municipalities should reject the establishment of land banks. Land banks may sound good in theory, but in political and practical reality they have been a major failure.

The post Show-Me Minute: Land Banks Must Be Defeated appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In government, nothing succeeds like failure. How else to explain Springfield’s attempt to imitate St. Louis and Kansas City with the creation of a city land bank despite the clear evidence of failure of the existing lands banks in both of those cities.

Land banks are local agencies empowered to acquire vacant, derelict, or tax-delinquent properties with the goal of returning them to productive use in the private sector. Land banks are authorized to be more proactive in acquiring property than traditional county land trusts. The goal of land banks may be laudable. Their record of performance is much less so.

Missouri created the nation’s first land bank in St. Louis in 1971 to help get control of vacant properties and return them to private use. Since that time, the St. Louis land bank has proven better at acquiring properties than at returning them to the private sector. In a struggling city like St. Louis, that isn’t surprising. More troubling is that the reluctance to get rid of the properties it owns has been no accident. Research by Show-Me Institute staff and others has documented the alarming frequency with which legitimate offers for property in the land bank have been rejected. Most commonly, the land bank has been rejecting offers in order to hold the land for future—often more politically connected—development. That development has seldom come to fruition, so thousands of land bank parcels have sat unused for decades.

In 2012, Kansas City followed St. Louis with its own land bank. At the time, the Show-Me Institute published research documenting the failures of the St. Louis land bank as a warning to Kansas City. Disregarding the history and evidence, the state approved a Kansas City land bank, which was started up that year.

Fast forward to 2022, and the Kansas City Star has recently published a major investigative article on problems at the Kansas City land bank. Needless to say, the Kansas City land bank has not lived up to its promises. Its executive director was removed in 2018 after accusations of political favoritism and other problems. The family of the Jackson County Executive received a special deal on certain properties, which raised plenty of eyebrows. As in St. Louis, the Kansas City land bank has been plagued by conflicts of interest and poor management.

The final Missouri city to institute a land bank in Missouri is St. Joseph, in 2019. Thus far the land bank has proceeded laboriously. After two years, it owns just five properties. It may be too early to make a final judgment, but based on its slow start and the lack of success in other cities I’d say the prognosis for the St. Joseph land bank is poor.

Land banks have fundamental problems. Ideally, they would work quickly and efficiently to place properties they own back into private hands. But that very speed is what can make them subject to abuse by those with political connections. In order to guard against such problems, they can become a typical bureaucracy—slow and difficult to deal with. But in that case, few in the private sector will want to work with them. So, the choices are to operate quickly and accept some level of malfeasance, or to operate bureaucratically and drive away your own potential customers. Finally, land bank employees have little incentive to do their jobs so well that they find themselves out of one.

Supporters may claim that Springfield would operate its land bank more effectively than St. Louis, Kansas City or St. Joseph. I don’t dispute the sincerity of the promises—just the likelihood that they’ll be kept.

Springfield needs a new city land bank about as much as it needs the return of bushwackers and bald-knobbers. The city would be better off not creating a land bank and letting Greene County dispose of tax-delinquent properties in its longstanding manner. If Springfield does create a land bank, I fully expect to read a News-Leader investigative report of its failures in the next few years.

The post Springfield Does Not Need a Land Bank appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You are probably familiar with various versions of the phrase, “Time to get out while the getting is good.” While that suggestion does not often apply to government, it most certainly does to the St. Joseph Land Bank.

In 1971, the state created the nation’s first “land bank” in St. Louis to help get control of vacant properties and return them to private use. Since that time, the St. Louis land bank has proven better at acquiring properties than at returning them to the private sector. In a struggling city like St. Louis, that alone should not be a surprise. More troubling is that the hesitancy in getting rid of the properties it had has been no accident. Research by Show-Me Institute staff and others documented the alarming frequency with which legitimate offers for property in the land bank have been rejected. Most commonly, the land bank has been rejecting offers in order to hold the land for future — often more politically connected — development. That development has seldom come to fruition, so thousands of land bank parcels have just sat there for decades.

In 2012, Kansas City followed St. Louis with its own land bank. At the time, the Show-Me Institute published research documenting the failures of the St. Louis land bank as a warning to Kansas City about what was ahead. But, proving once again in government that nothing succeeds like failure, the state approved a Kansas City land bank, which was started up later that year.

Fast forward to December 2021, and the Kansas City Star has just published a series of stories on development failures in parts of Kansas City, including a major article on problems at the Kansas City land bank. Needless to say, the Kansas City land bank has not lived up to its promises. Its executive director was removed in 2018 after accusations of political favoritism and other problems. The family of the Jackson County executive received a special deal on certain properties, which raised plenty of eyebrows. As in St. Louis, the Kansas City land bank has been plagued by conflicts of interest and poor management.

Land banks have fundamental problems. Ideally, they would work quickly and efficiently to place properties they own back into private hands. But that very speed is what will inevitably make them subject to abuse by those with political connections. In order to guard against such problems, they can become a typical bureaucracy—slow and ponderous to deal with. But if they do that, few in the private sector will want to work with them. So, the choices are to operate quickly and accept some level of malfeasance or to operate bureaucratically and drive away some of the people who approach you. Finally, land bank employees have little incentive to do their jobs so well that they find themselves out of one. Idealists may wonder why St. Joseph’s land bank can’t have the best of all worlds and be nimble, honest, and focused—but if the experiences in St. Louis and Kansas City are any guide that is not going to happen.

The St. Joseph land bank has, according to reports, chosen to err on the side of ponderous bureaucracy since it began operating in 2019, and that was before it even held any properties. Now it has five properties to try to return to the private sector as taxable, productive land and buildings. I remember in 2012 when Kansas City opened its land bank and promised it would be operated more effectively than St. Louis’s. That didn’t happen. I am sure the same promises would be made now at the St. Joseph land bank in reference to Kansas City. I don’t dispute the sincerity of the promises—just the likelihood of their fulfilment.

Traditional county land trusts have worked fine as a way to deal with abandoned properties. The City of St. Joseph should take heed of the recent stories in Kansas City and transfer those five land bank properties to Buchanan County for inclusion in the annual county tax sale process. Get out while the getting is good, or else I will expect in about five years to read a News-Press exposé on the failures of the St. Joseph land bank.

The post When It Comes to The Land Bank, St. Joseph Should Get Out While It Still Can appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The City of Saint Louis has an agency, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA), which manages more than 10,000 of these vacant and abandoned properties. The LRA has an enormous responsibility. Its actions, past and present, can play a major role in determining the future of this city. In a 2011 Show-Me Institute Policy Study called “Standstill: How City Agencies Have Hindered Development In Saint Louis While Waiting For Large-Scale Miracles,” then-policy analyst Audrey Spalding examined the actions and decisions the LRA makes that heavily affect the city of Saint Louis. The study found that the LRA was not fulfilling the responsibilities of the organization as created and defined in Missouri statute.

The LRA has the ability to increase private investment in Saint Louis neighborhoods, which can help create a better Saint Louis. But it cannot do that if it does not sell properties.

By building on the work presented in “Standstill,” this case study will provide insight into how the LRA has changed over the last couple of years and whether it has started to achieve the original goals tasked to it more than 40 years ago.

Read the case study:

See also the Show-Me Institute’s previous research on land banks:

• Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles? — April 19, 2011
• Land Banking: An Old Idea With A Poor Track Record — March 26, 2012
• Kansas City Land Bank Proposal: Learning From Failures Of The Saint Louis Land Bank— March 05, 2012
• Land Banking Is No Miracle — February 29, 2012
• Land Bank Recommendations — February 28, 2012
• Legislators Should Seriously Consider the Failings of the Saint Louis Land Bank before Creating a Kansas City Land Bank — February 08, 2012
• What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA — October 03, 2011
• Why Is There So Much Vacant Land in Saint Louis? — February 22, 2011
• Paper Questions City Landholding Policy — February 21, 2011

The post Promoting Private Land Ownership In Saint Louis: A Data Update On The Land Reutilization Authority appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cassandra Griffin pleaded with the board to let her buy a small lot right next to her house. She has been maintaining the lot for years because the owner neglected the property and Griffin wanted the neighborhood to look nice. She continued maintaining the lot when the LRA acquired it earlier this year. Her offer was lower than the city’s estimated value of $1,454 — but she explained that she has already spent close to $4,000 on upkeep.

The LRA should be happy to give this small plot of land to a woman who is proud of her neighborhood and wants to keep it in good shape. Instead, one of the board members remarked that the LRA has only owned this property for about a year, and it is big enough to build on so someone else might want to buy it. Is that a good reason to turn down a buyer?

Here is a picture of Griffin’s home and the empty lot she wants to purchase (from Google Maps):

The LRA’s mission is to put abandoned, tax-delinquent properties back into productive use. No one else has attempted to purchase this property. How long is the LRA going to hold onto it? If Griffin stopped maintaining the property, the city would spend taxpayer dollars on upkeep when they could let her own the property now, maintain it herself, and pay taxes on that land. The city could wait years before someone comes along who wants to build on this property (more likely, they may never come). Time is money.

The post Time Is Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More than 40 years ago, Saint Louis City set up a land bank in response to the exodus of its residents, and the vacant property they left behind. When the land bank was created, the hope was that it could return vacant property back to private, productive use.

Instead, the land bank has adopted policies which have compounded the vacancy crises. Most troubling is the land bank’s policy of giving area aldermen an inordinate amount of influence over whether someone can purchase property. Offers from residents are rejected simply because their local alderman does not express his approval of the sale.

Offers to buy vacant land bank property are often from neighborhood residents. The properties are generally in a state of disrepair, and the bidder is planning to repair the property in an attempt to make his or her neighborhood a better place to live. If the resident does not have the blessing of his local alderman, the offer is typically rejected.

Consider the case of 2925 Union, a rundown, 1-story brick building in Saint Louis that received offers from four different buyers. The Saint Louis land bank said no to all four offers. When the area alderman showed up at a land bank meeting and told the land bank to sell the property to another buyer, it did.

Tragically, this policy of deferring to area officials will be written into law if Philadelphia’s land bank ordinance is adopted. In its current form, Philadelphia’s ordinance forbids the land bank from entering into a transaction if the district council person expresses disapproval. This policy will almost certainly thwart development byresidents who do not have their councilman’s approval, even if the resident plans to put the property to productive use.

Our fear is not unfounded. This happens frequently in Saint Louis. The former deputy mayor for development told us that “the sort of working arrangement we have with the aldermen is that if they don’t want to do something, we don’t want to do it.”

In order to quickly get land back into private, productive use, a land bank should accept reasonable purchase offers, even if politicians oppose them.

Philadelphia should also heed Saint Louis’s failed attempts to hold property for future development. Show-Me Institute research revealed that between 2003 and 2010, the Saint Louis land bank rejected nearly half of all purchase offers. The most common reason for rejection was that the property was being held for future development. Unfortunately, the hoped-for future developments rarely materialize.

In Philadelphia, the land bank proposal establishes goals that may undermine efforts to return the land to productive use. The goals include otherwise laudable priorities, such as encouraging “affordable or mixed-income housing that is accessible or visitable” and “community facilities that provide needed services and enrichment opportunities; side- and rear-yards; urban agriculture; and community open space.” These goals may have the unintended consequence of providing a reason for the land bank to reject purchase offers that do not fit the land bank’s vision. Again, our fears are grounded in experience – this public policy failure has occurred repeatedly in Saint Louis.

To be clear, Saint Louis’s adverse policies are not written into law, and can be suspended at any time. Indeed, it appears that in response to the Show-Me Institute’s research the land bank bank’s rejection rate was cut nearly in half. But in Philadelphia, these poor policies will be written into law.

Bruce Stahl is a research assistant and Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Don’t Bank on It: When it Comes to Vacant Property, Learn from Saint Louis’ Failures appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, in February 2011, Wyandotte County and a wrecking company destroyed the property. Munoz is suing for damages.

The story seems like a shocking outlier. But, just months ago, there was a similar demolition east across the state line, in Missouri.

Show-Me Daily readers may already be familiar with the Jackson County Land Trust, the government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. State legislators have criticized the Land Trust for not selling much property. But, in at least one case, the Land Trust sold a property to a buyer, only to have to deal with the consequences when Kansas City accidentally demolished the property.

During its January 2012 meeting, the Land Trust noted that:

. . . an elderly non-English speaking gentleman purchased 3914 E. 46^th Street from Land Trust. Unbeknownst to the buyer, about 30 days subsequent to his purchase, the city demolished the structure on the property. . . . the buyer is interested in 3227 Garfield as a potential alternative and that the buyer may be approaching Land Trust for resolution.

Sadly, when local government gets enthusiastic about demolishing properties in an attempt to mitigate “blight,” property owners can lose their homes. An example in Montgomery, Ala., provides another cautionary tale. There, homes were bulldozed for ordinance violations. To add insult to injury, property owners were then billed for the cost of the demolition.

Is it too much to ask for local government to do a little more due diligence before knocking down someone’s property?

The post Oops! Sorry About Demolishing Your Property appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since 2005, the Land Trust has sold more than 1,700 properties for more than $1.5 million. Due to a data error, Callahan and other legislators were presented with incorrect information that made the Land Trust appear to have sold very few properties in recent years.

The correct sales data, which the Land Trust itself provided, is listed below. You can also download a spreadsheet of all addresses sold (and purchase prices) here:

2011: 200 properties were sold

2010: 137 properties were sold

2009: 154 properties were sold

2008: 181 properties were sold.

A big part of the narrative that is being used to advocate for the land bank legislation in Jefferson City is that the existing Land Trust is not selling enough property.

The truth is that the Land Trust sales rate in recent years is as good as, if not better than, the sales rate of any land bank I have researched — including the longest-standing land banking experiment in the United States, the 40-year-old Saint Louis land bank.

Indeed, the very land bank that proponents hold up as the gold standard of land banking (the Genesee County Land Bank in Michigan) continues to amass property. Where, exactly, is the story of success that land bank proponents hope to replicate in Kansas City?

I will admit it: I just do not understand why legislators are in a rush to create a land bank in Kansas City. Why pass legislation that would create an entity similar to what has a long-term track record of failure in Saint Louis? Why create a land bank that could incur unlimited debt with the power to say “no” to people who want to buy vacant, city property? And, why cast aside the Land Trust, which cannot discriminate when selling property and has a reasonable sales record?

The post Since 2005, Jackson County Land Trust Has Sold More Than 1,700 Properties appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The failed Citadel Development in Kansas City. What would such a development spearheaded by a land bank look like? Photo by Josh Smith.

On Feb. 8, I testified in Jefferson City before legislators who are considering a bill to create a land bank in Kansas City. I was there to talk about the track record of a land bank that we already have in Missouri. You may know it as the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). According to our research, the LRA has frequently rejected offers to buy vacant city property, and has practices that seem to invite political favoritism.

The bill being considered, House Bill 1659, would grant a Kansas City land bank the powers that the LRA currently enjoys, and more. I wonder why Kansas City needs a land bank, given the lack of successes that we have seen in Saint Louis. In fact, there already is a government entity that deals with vacant land in Kansas City. The Jackson County Land Trust currently takes ownership of tax-delinquent properties that fail to sell at tax auction, and works to sell them.

It may seem confusing, but the actions of a land trust can be drastically different than those of a land bank. A land trust generally does not attempt to acquire property for development nor does it take an active role in deciding what the best use of the property might be. A land bank can do both of those things.

As we have seen in Saint Louis and elsewhere, city government can do a very poor job when it comes to identifying successful future developments. The LRA is an example, as is Ballpark Village in Saint Louis. The failed Citadel Development in Kansas City (pictured above) provides perhaps the starkest, most recent example.

HB 1659 would require that all property the Jackson County Land Trust holds within Kansas City be transferred to the Kansas City Land Bank. During the House hearing of HB 1659, the bill’s co-sponsor, Missouri Rep. Michael Brown (D-Dist. 50), stated that this legislation would only involve property for which there are “plans.” Does Kansas City really have plans for all 2,800 parcels within its boundaries that the Land Trust currently holds?

Brown also noted that the Jackson County Land Trust is having difficulty returning property to private, productive use. Yet, in August 2003, the Kansas City Star reported that, since 2001, the Jackson County Land Trust had sold more than 1,100 properties for more than $1 million. This is a faster rate of sale than what we have seen in Saint Louis.

The land trust owns approximately 3,200 parcels, with approximately 2,800 in Kansas City. According to the last state audit that examined the Land Trust’s operations, the trust held 3,087 parcels in August 1999. By comparing that number to the land trust’s current holdings, it appears that, in the course of selling and acquiring properties by default, the land trust has added just a little more than 140 parcels to its inventory during the past decade.

For comparison purposes, the LRA has added more than 800 parcels to its inventory. The LRA has acquired about six times as much property as the Jackson County Land Trust, and from a parcel base less than half the size of Jackson County.

What evidence is there that the Land Trust is doing a poor job of getting property back into private ownership? It appears, purely from a numbers perspective, that the Land Trust has done an adequate job of selling property. And yet, based on our review of the past eight years of its operation, the Saint Louis LRA has struggled – due to political and structural issues – to get vacant property back into private, productive use.

Shouldn’t the Missouri Legislature require evidence showing that the Jackson County Land Trust is inadequate and that creating a land bank is in the best interests of state taxpayers and Kansas City residents before passing HB 1659?

Rep. Brown stated during the hearing that “We don’t know all the wonderful things that could happen with this land bank.” Perhaps we do have a glimpse, thanks to Saint Louis, of the failures that could occur.

The post Why Does Kansas City Need a Land Bank? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post What a Difference a Year Makes: Saint Louis City’s Land Bank, the LRA appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So, I was happily surprised to see at the LRA’s monthly meeting today that the agency did not reject a single offer of the 25 it considered. (The agency did reject half of one man’s offer: He offered to purchase two properties, and the LRA voted to accept his offer for only one of those properties.)

This is big news! During an eight-year period, the LRA rejected more than 42 percent of the offers it formally considered. It now appears that the agency is working to accept or counter more offers to purchase vacant property in the city. In the entire eight years surveyed for our study, there was only one month during which the agency rejected zero offers — and that was after we started taking a close look at the agency’s operations.

The LRA’s lack of rejections this month is just the latest sign that the agency is thinking about ways to improve its operations. In March, the agency accepted more offers than it previously had been accepting, and lowered the price of some of its properties.  The agency also tweaked its policy to allow more individuals to purchase side lots.

I hope these changes are all signals that the LRA is working to sell more properties so they can be put back into private, productive use. Accepting and countering more offers is the latest development, and it certainly is a step in the right direction.

The post A Sign of Hope? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After all, the LRA had rejected Anthony Barber’s offer to purchase the property in 2010 because, the agency said, “the parcel is being held as part of a larger development site.” The LRA did not specify exactly what the larger development site was. Barber had plans to build a barbeque restaurant at 1252 Academy, he had the support of his alderman and neighborhood association, and he even had the menus for his restaurant planned out. But, in 2010, that apparently wasn’t enough for the LRA.

Nearly a year later, after the publication of Show-Me Institute research showing that the agency rejected almost one out of every two offers to purchase vacant city property, a few months after the head LRA commissioner resigned from his post, after an LRA commissioner met with the Show-Me Institute to discuss ways to change the LRA process, and soon after the LRA began to make positive changes to its administrative policies, the LRA accepted Barber’s offer.

By accepting Anthony Barber’s offer, the agency has broken its nearly decade-long track record of rejecting offers to purchase 1252 Academy. As detailed in my study of the LRA’s practices during the past eight years, the agency began rejecting offers on the property in 2001. Again and again, the LRA said that the property was “being held for development.”

Hopefully, the LRA will continue on its path of accepting more offers to purchase property. Only by doing so does the city have a chance at returning the more than 9,000 vacant properties owned by the LRA back into private, productive use.

The post 1252 Academy Is Approved for Sale! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Radley Balko, of Reason magazine, recently wrote about the reprehensible actions of Montgomery officials in Slate. From the article:

Over the last decade or so, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of homes in Montgomery have been declared blighted and razed in a similar manner. The owners tend to be disproportionately poor and black, and with little means to fight back. […]

Alabama state law actually forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. Instead, Montgomery deems property blighted based on a section of state law that gives code inspectors wide leeway. The owner must then correct the problem to the satisfaction of the inspectors, or the city will […] [r]aze the property, bill the owner for the demolition, and then sell the property off to developers if the owner doesn’t pay. If you can’t afford repairs, you may well lose your home.

Terrifying. Not only will the city bulldoze your home for ordinance violations, but you will then have to pay for the destruction, and try to figure out what to do with your newly vacant land. As Balko points out in the article, this is actually worse than eminent domain. If the city takes your property through eminent domain, it at least has to pay for it.

The city of Montgomery has the power to do this by first issuing an ordinance violation citation, and then blighting the property, which enables the city to begin the condemnation process. That blight designation is key. Unfortunately, vague statutory language can enable overzealous city officials to blight property otherwise in good condition.

I used to think of “blight” as a word reserved for the very worst properties — those that are falling down, or, in the case of the city of Saint Louis, buildings that have been hollowed out by brick thieves. However, the city of Saint Louis recently demonstrated that a property can be blighted for any number of reasons. My favorite example, from the massive blighting done to enable the award of $400 million in tax increment financing for a large development project,  is that of New Roots, an urban farm in north Saint Louis that was deemed blighted because of “excessive vegetation.” Also on the egregious blighting list is the ABC news station on 13th Street, which was blighted because the building is more than 30 years old, though the property is appraised at nearly $700,000.

Missouri state statute defines a blighted area as an area which may have:

[…] predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use;

Some of the above definitions of blight are fairly concrete, but others are excessively vague. For example, what exactly “constitutes an economic or social liability”? What is a “menace” to “morals”? The vagueness in the referenced statute allows for the blighting of property such as the ABC news station for something pervasive in an old city — older buildings.

Bottom line: The city of Montgomery is a perfect illustration of the fact that a blight designation is not harmless. It can be a step in the direction of taking, or even bulldozing, a person’s home.

The post Yikes! Blight! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although NorthSide redevelopment plans for her area indicate that Shirley Hamilton’s neighborhood is slated to be replaced, Hamilton said she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this. “It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said.

The home of Shirley Hamilton, in the 2200 block of Madison Street, in Saint Louis’ north side.

Three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises. That promise concerns the use of eminent domain.

Shirley Hamilton has been living at 2209 Madison since 1978. Her home is one of three houses on the 2220 block of Madison, all of which are small, but tidy. Between each house is a good amount of open space.

These three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises.

That promise concerns the use of eminent domain. Although eminent domain is constitutional, it can be very unpopular, especially if it appears that a government agency is using that power merely to help a private business.

Proponents of the development, including developer Paul McKee, NorthSide lawyer Paul Puricelli, Alderman April Ford-Griffin, and Alderman Marlene Davis, have said repeatedly that the city won’t use eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes, and that fears to the contrary are unfounded. In fact, the company went even further. When NorthSide applied for millions of dollars in tax credits from the state, the company submitted an affidavit stating, among other things, that “The Applicant has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under the Redevelopment Plan.” McKee, the chief manager of NorthSide, signed it.

Along with that affidavit, NorthSide submitted a list of about 260 owner-occupied residences to the state. Hamilton’s home and the house sitting the farthest west on her block were on that list.

NorthSide has also disclosed some of its preliminary plans for the area in its redevelopment plan, which was submitted to the city when the company applied for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (it has been approved for up to $380 million). One of the more interesting pages of that plan is page 24, which is a map of “proposed open space” for the area.

Another home on the 2200 block of Madison. Photos by Caitlin Hartsell.

According to that map, NorthSide plans to remake four city blocks into open space: the area lying between Madison Street and Maiden Lane, west of 22nd Street and extending a little past Jefferson Avenue. In other words, despite all the assurances about the limits on eminent domain for the NorthSide project — including the affidavit of its chief manager — Hamilton and her neighbor are two owners who may not have long to occupy their homes.

That’s not to say that the company didn’t try to purchase Hamilton’s home. About a year ago, she said, she got a letter from a lawyer, representing an anonymous buyer, looking to purchase her home. When Hamilton called the number listed, she said, she was quickly offered $60,000 for the property. But Hamilton, who is retired, wasn’t interested in searching for a new home, and asked instead if the buyer could offer her a deed to a different property, elsewhere in the city. The lawyer promised to check, Hamilton said, but never called back. A few months later, Hamilton said, she was sent the same form letter.

Hamilton said that her next door neighbor did sell. According to city property data, the second house on the block is owned by MLK 3000, one of the companies that NorthSide used to acquire properties under the radar. Hamilton said she isn’t interested in moving, but if the developer could offer a trade instead of money, she would consider it. She’d like to stay in the city.

An email inquiring about how concrete the plans for open space are, and whether NorthSide would adjust its plans if property owners were unwilling to move, did not receive a response from Bill Laskowsky, NorthSide’s chief development officer, and a company representative.

Ultimately, Hamilton said, she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this.

“It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said. Laughing, she noted that when Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. was in office, her home was slated to become a golf course.

“I’ll deal with it when it comes,” she said.

According to NorthSide’s plans and its submitted list of owner occupied residences, two other homes appear to be slated for open space: one on the 2500 block of Madison, and one on the 2700 block of Glasgow Street.

Within other documents submitted by NorthSide, the company has designated the area surrounding Hamilton’s home as “mixed use,” which could indicate a different set of plans for the area.

The post At Least Four North Side Homes Slated for ‘Open Space’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Shirley Hamilton has been living at 2209 Madison since 1978. Her home is one of three houses on the 2220 block of Madison, all of which are small, but tidy. Between each house is a good amount of open space.

These three houses fall squarely within the boundaries of the recently approved $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side. Of course, about 4,600 other properties also fall within those boundaries, but in the case of the 2200 block of Madison, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind the development, may be endangering one of its most frequently invoked promises.

That promise concerns the use of eminent domain. Although eminent domain is constitutional, it can be very unpopular, especially if it appears that a government agency is using that power merely to help a private business.

Proponents of the development, including developer Paul McKee, NorthSide lawyer Paul Puricelli, Alderman April Ford-Griffin, and Alderman Marlene Davis, have said repeatedly that the city won’t use eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes, and that fears to the contrary are unfounded. In fact, the company went even further. When NorthSide applied for millions of dollars in tax credits from the state, the company submitted an affidavit stating, among other things, that “The Applicant has not identified any owner-occupied residences for acquisition under the Redevelopment Plan.” McKee, the chief manager of NorthSide, signed it.

Along with that affidavit, NorthSide submitted a list of about 260 owner-occupied residences to the state. Hamilton’s home and the house sitting the farthest west on her block were on that list.

NorthSide has also disclosed some of its preliminary plans for the area in its redevelopment plan, which was submitted to the city when the company applied for nearly $400 million in tax increment financing (it has been approved for up to $380 million). One of the more interesting pages of that plan is page 24, which is a map of “proposed open space” for the area.

According to that map, NorthSide plans to remake four city blocks into open space: the area lying between Madison Street and Maiden Lane, west of 22nd Street and extending a little past Jefferson Avenue. In other words, despite all the assurances about the limits on eminent domain for the NorthSide project — including the affidavit of its chief manager — Hamilton and her neighbor are two owners who may not have long to occupy their homes.

That’s not to say that the company didn’t try to purchase Hamilton’s home. About a year ago, she said, she got a letter from a lawyer, representing an anonymous buyer, looking to purchase her home. When Hamilton called the number listed, she said, she was quickly offered $60,000 for the property. But Hamilton, who is retired, wasn’t interested in searching for a new home, and asked instead if the buyer could offer her a deed to a different property, elsewhere in the city. The lawyer promised to check, Hamilton said, but never called back. A few months later, Hamilton said, she was sent the same form letter.

Hamilton said that her next door neighbor did sell. According to city property data, the second house on the block is owned by MLK 3000, one of the companies that NorthSide used to acquire properties under the radar. Hamilton said she isn’t interested in moving, but if the developer could offer a trade instead of money, she would consider it. She’d like to stay in the city.

An email inquiring about how concrete the plans for open space are, and whether NorthSide would adjust its plans if property owners were unwilling to move, did not receive a response from Bill Laskowsky, NorthSide’s chief development officer, and a company representative.

Ultimately, Hamilton said, she’s not concerned. As a resident of a city block with only three houses, she said, she’s been expecting this.

“It’s been going on as long as I’ve been here,” she said. Laughing, she noted that when Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. was in office, her home was slated to become a golf course.

“I’ll deal with it when it comes,” she said.

According to NorthSide’s plans and its submitted list of owner occupied residences, two other homes appear to be slated for open space: one on the 2500 block of Madison, and one on the 2700 block of Glasgow Street.

Within other documents submitted by NorthSide, the company has designated the area surrounding Hamilton’s home as “mixed use,” which could indicate a different set of plans for the area.

The post At Least Four North Side Homes Slated for “Open Space” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.